first mate

A purely political decision in the run up to the election and before the option for available money runs out. Council elections are some years off, but councillors know how local effects can impact on national voting. This lot want to say, 'look how marvellous we have made everywhere safer'. If this were true then great, but poor planning and the speed with which this initiative has been pushed through without proper consultation, means that, as you rightly perceive, it has created a degree of chaos and arguably reduced safety. Why for instance did councillors simply override the police who objected to 20mph on main roads? I too have cars flashing lights, tailgating and overtaking at high speed to make a point, so much so that it takes a great effort of will to maintain 20mph and not to be intimated into driving faster.

As you may now know, this is part of Southwark's grand vision for borough-wide 20mph, only it is not to be enforced and the police objected to it. Currently it is voluntary, though in law it is binding....go figure. The reality is it has created confusion and more chaotic driving. It will require a shitload of money on cameras etc to enforce it.

It is interesting how Southwark can use support for schemes from those outside the affected areas when it suits them. Yet on the 'free parking' consultation only those within 50 m of the affected area could be counted. What a slippery lot they are down at Tooley St.

We are lucky to have a number of good puppy training classes locally. South Eastern Dog Training is the longest established and is Kennel Club accredited, they offer training at all levels. For anyone who wants behaviour work go to someone qualified. The professional body for uk canine behaviourists is a good place to start at www.tcbts.co.uk

I would try to see a qualified behaviourist or trainer. For dog specialists go to www.tcbts.co.uk

I think they are actually often not aware of changes in the law. As you say, there might be grounds to make a case. The DDA has been tightened up and there us also civil law.You could also get a CPN (Community Protection Notice) out on the owner. This was made law in 2014 and both the parks and police should know this and they should have advised you. Re a CPN your case is exactly what this was designed to tackle. The Council and the police need to get their act together.

I'd advise that your daughter does not walk your dog on her own, certainly for a while and don't walk her near where she was attacked. You want to reduce any associations with tbe experience of being attacked as much as possible, this will aid the dog recovering mentally. Stay very upbeat and jolly with her. Try not to feel sorry for her, she needs to feel she is safe and a calm, upbeat manner will help her most.

I am shocked and appalled that the man involved did not do the decent thing and not only help your daughter but ensure he paid your vet bills. His actions are highly irresponsible and he must be found for the simple reason that having done this once his dogs may well do it again. We will all keep an eye out for the man and dogs matching your description. Should you wish, contrary to what the police say, you may have some recourse in the law but it may not be easy or straightforward. Unfortunately two or more dogs can sometimes 'pack' and turn on another dog. Even normally placid dogs may, in a duo or group,turn quite nasty There could be many reasons for this type of behaviour but what is clear is that the owner needs to have his dogs under close control (on a lead) around other dogs in future. I hope your girl is healing well. Generally labs are pretty resilient and provided you stay confident she will hopefully mark the experience down as an odd one off. If she starts to to seem anxious around other dogs I'd suggest you see someone.

Only just realised that the proposed burial plots would be up for sale to anyone anywhere. So again, a revenue garnering exercise and another example of major change with minimum consultation.

The whole thing appears to be a ness. Labour will soon, come election time, be trumpeting that they have made a safer borough for all by imposition of 20mph, but the reality is different; what actually happens is that a minority try to adhere to it while the majority ignore it. Those that ignore it are inclined to get angry and frustrated if they are stuck behind someone adhering to the limit. There seems to be an increase in overtaking in a reckless way. The police won't monitor or enforce 20mph, they opposed 20mph on main roads, so the council will have to spend loads of money on cameras at some point. We have to decide if this is money well spent.

In my view, Southwark Planning are not fit for purpose. I wholeheartedly agree, both planners and councillors appear to be the developers' creatures and terrified to take a proper stand against developments that have nothing to offer local communities and do everything to help line the pockets of developers and investment buyers.

Very best of luck to you. Your poor relative must feel very anxious. Could you just tell us which three MP's you contacted, which of these bothered to answer and what they advised? It will, of course, be clear which two did not bother. This is precisely the sort of 'unsexy' issue that will show politicians in their true colours and is useful to have on the record. I hope you have also reported what sounds like a truly disgusting attitude from a council employee.

Hi james, On the one hour parking thread you will note that a long reply from the Council was posted by Woodwarde in repsonse to questions about the efficacy of this scheme and the validity of the consultattion process. Based on the Council's rationale another poster noted the following: This is the key part that explains the 'logic' behind the proposition that "more parking restrictions increases parking opportunity". If true then it would require that the cars that are currently parked on unrestricted roads are generally there all day - wonder if there has been any analysis of this? >>However, with the introduction of a time limit, this would increase the minimum number of parking slots per day from 17 to 100 (10 spaces x 10 hrs of operation).>This is necessary to ensure turn-over of space throughout the day. If those bays operated for just two hours per day you would find that the bays were fully occupied during the uncontrolled hours, which would prevent customers for stopping and parking close by. << Can you say if this sort of analysis was done? Can you comment on the above? Can you also comment on whether the new 10 minute grace period for parking, will apply to these newly created free parking slots? Do we know if part of the new scheme is to fund extra monitoring by putting more parking wardens onto the streets? If so, how much money will be spent on this?

James Barber, charlie Smith, Rosie shimell, Can you tell us if in the course of planning/consultation this kind of analysis has been done?

I had another journey yesterday where many drivers overtook me at great speed and in a reckless manner. Unless the council spend a load of money on enforcement( which they will not want to do) the universal application of 20mph is in reality a farce and one that makes certain roads less safe. I agree with what others have written about this being election box ticking, if it is not to be stringently enforced it simply creates confusion and frustration on a grand scale. Even the buses, especially the buses, are ignoring it.

Good post slarti b

How long does the dog bark for every night?

Proof, if proof were needed, that a range of major changes are being rushed through with only the appearance of consultation.

Agree about the issue of parents also have to be more aware of how kiddies treat dogs. Running towards a cute puppy, shrieking at eye level, arms outstretched in predatory fashion, is in some pups likely to instil a lifelong fear oif children, so it does work both ways. I always ask children to stand sideways to my dog and to pet the chest or back and avoid the head, which is a socially sensitive area. Standing head on can look challenging. I also think that society is much less animal-wise than it was, and kids even less so- all that knowledge is disappearing. More and more people wnat pets but have much less idea how to deal with them. Additionally dog breeds that are wholly unsuitable for an urban environment, unless in expert owner hands, are being kept. Working breeds often do not have appropriate outlets for instinctive drives, and this leads to overly rambunctious beahviour in park settings.

Just to clarify. Case 1 involved dogs that bounded up to a child walking back from school- one dog was much larger than the child. One dog vigorously investigated the child's bag- presumably after food. Pushy, bad dog manners = more training necessary. Case 2 Lively dogs on two separate occasions walked up to young child holding her teddy (not waving it around), took the teddy from the child and ran off. The child was, we are told, terrified and upset. Whether this was the manner in which the dogs took the teddy or that the toddler was frightened for his/her teddy's fate, is not clear. Either way, dogs need more training. With the right approach either child should be okay about dogs in future. Children often respond very well when they see that they can get a dog to sit, or similar, under command (obviously under parental and dog owner supervision. It just seems to help restore the child's confidence. I stand by my earlier comment. It is no longer a case of how we would like things to be, the law is pretty clear. A dog does not have to actually bite or nip someone to be in breach of the DDA, accidental injury is enough where a dog is deemed to be out of control- a dog impervious to owner command may be viewed as out of control. Whether trauma counts as injury is moot, but I would not be surprised if it surfaces at some point. There is also civil law with a lower standard of proof, so dog owners really need to wake up and smell the coffee.

rahrahrah, exactly. Let's be clear, young dogs, just like young children, are going to have moments when they go off piste and test the boundaries. If I were the owner of the rottweiler and this was the very first time ever it had bounded up to a child I would thenceforth, apologise to the parent, get the dog on a longline and do intensive training, until such time I could be pretty confident the dog would not do this again. All this is normal dog behaviour and, as ever, I blame the owners for being absent in the moment and not taking training seriously. That said mistakes do happen and we cannot create a risk free world. On the other hand, if the dog had already behaved like this and was still being given unfettered freedom to bound up to people and children, then the owner deserves a real ticking off for potentially scaring a child and parent, but also for putting his/her own dog in harm's way. Otta, just seen your post and I do agree but times have changed and, let's be honest, people are not so canny about animals in general. In days of old you'd often see pictures of a terrier hanging off someone's trouser leg (that's just the way terriers are)and it was brushed off. If a child got bitten for standing on a dog's tail, the child learned the hard way not to do that again. Today, either of these two incidents could get a dog put down as vicious. My concern is with the reality of the law and what can/could be done with it should people decide to. Because I don't wnat to see swathes of normal dogs put down or kept on a lead all their lives, I urge owners to be realistic and train and supervise properly.

I would just repeat that, whether we like it or not, the law now provides the means for recourse where someone considers themselves to be unreasonably frigtened by a dog that is not under control. A dog that is off lead and that goes up to a child, unbidden, and 'snatches' a toy out of that child's hand is not under control. A large dog might be very intimdating to a small child. A snatchy dog, in a state of high arousal, can quite easily and unintentionally graze a small child with its teeth or claws. I do not want to see dogs banned from parks or orders requiring them to be on lead all the time in public parks, but if people continue to be so laissez faire around dog control those that want dogs out of parks will have a good case. In this instance, the second woman said the dogs were not just offlead they 'snatched' a toy out of her child's hand. If this happens in your own home it is still highly undesirable but only impacts on the owner- in this case the child and mother were simply out an about minding their own business. Were another strange child to march up and snatch a toy I am sure it would be viewed as undesirable and efforts would be made to ensure this was not repeated. Equally many dogs would not be at all amused if a strange dog approached and attempted to grab their toy. I do agree that parents staying calm will help the child not to develop a generalised fear of all dogs. I do despair of children that scream and cry as an on lead dog approaches on the street and they are comforted and shepherded by obviously, highly anxious parents, who probably do not help their child's anxiety. If I see this anxiety at distance and I am walking my dog I try to cross the road to give the child space, but perhaps parents with anxious children might also consider doing the same, occasionally.

J9duff, What part of the park were you in when thus happened? I agree with everything you say and would observe that dogs are allowed to run free on the open, field areas and should, in my view, be kept on lead on the path areas and in ornamental gardens. I think a problem might arise when you have toddlers and dogs in the field areas. My view is that young, untrained dogs should be exercised on a long line. I'd imagine that parents are close to their toddler at all times. If they see a dog running towards their child they could, if the dog is on a line, get it under control. This would likely calm the child as well as the dog. I can quite understand that the incident is scary for the child and I too wish dog owners were a little more aware. Use of park space means we all have to exercise give and take much more and we cannot expect to enjoy the same freedoms that larger spaces might afford. All I can say is that a sense if humour may help the child to understand that the dog is trying to play, though in an inappropriate way...i say this only to try to avoid any child viewing all dogs as terrifying and I do think parent reaction and attitude plays a part there, though this in no way excuses the actions under discussion. Actually I've just re-read your post and if, as you say, the dogs marched up to your toddler and snatched the toy from her hand I would be very annoyed. Dogs that snatch objects or food from human hands need to be kept under close control until they have learned their manners. One good reason is that it is not inconceivable that a snatchy dog could accidently hurt a child by, grazing the skin.

The owners should have their dogs under better control and not allow them so much freedom if they cannot control them. As a dog lover I hate to say this but technically a 'friendly' dog that 'playfully' jumped up and in the process accidentally injured a child, might be deemed in breach of the Dangerous Dogs Act. I think dog owners really need to be a bit more aware on this score. The issue of whether a parent would press charges if they deemed their child injured by virtue of trauma is moot, but it may only be a matter of time. it would be a shame if your child were to become frightened of dogs. I find collaring the owner and then asking if your child can tell the dog to sit on command ,or similar,can help the child get over a bit of their fright.

James, I was wondering if there was any more news on this consultation?